A week ago that sentence “Je suis Charlie” (I am Charlie) meant nothing to anyone.
I bet though that most of you today know what it means – and even those who don’t speak a word of French – this sentence has become the epitome for freedom of speech and symphatism with those that have dared and died for it.
I was in the car when I heard about the assassination of the french satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and really I was so shocked that I couldn’t concentrate properly on the traffic anymore.
“Je suis Charlie” – I too am an individual who wants to be able to speak or write or paint my opinion openly and without fear of being assassinated. And even if what I have to say is not so easy to digest– and even though I may be close to the edge. I respect others that speak their mind openly and want to have the same right for myself.
When it comes to poetry – how fearless are you about what you write?
Are you careful not to step on anyone’s toes?
What is your benchmark for respect?
What’s your reaction if you read someone’s poetry and think they’re crossing a line? Will you tell them in the comments? Will you get angry and leave?
What are your thoughts when it comes to freedom of speech?
Looking forward to the conversation…
dVerse 
Oh I have thought a lot about that.. to me I try to be courteous, but not necessary kind, some of my poetry could probably upset people… But personally I try to avoid writing about religion at all.. But I know people who still gets upset of what I write… I usually don’t get upset, but I refrain from commenting on what I don’t like, and comment on what I like instead… Maybe I’m a coward… but being courteous usually helps…
i don’t think it has to do with being a coward – usually i try to focus on what i like as well and focus on that in my comments – i wanna build bridges to people….
I think so too.. there are so many things that might offend people… so I take care. But I still want my freedom of speech.. But for me freedom is always tied to responsibility..
that is a very good point… i would totally second that
Me too.
And yet these folks were shot for comment on what they did not like.
They were shot for offending folks.
you’re not being a coward, Bjorn… It’s just you don’t wanna waste any energy on the negative – which is a good thing, as well as respectfully going back and forth.
So were those who were shot, “wasting energy on the negative”?
Personally.. i’ve yet to find any poetry online that personally offends me.. and can always find something positive to inspire me.. no matter who writes the poetry.. AND what the poetry is.. and respond as such.. IN KIND.
The only way i can find disdain.. is if a malice attempt to hurt someone is initiated.. and truly as far as i can see so far.. per almost 100%.. that is JUST not the mind of poetic expression…
But that’s just me.. and i understand that each human being is a combination of different brushes.. strokes.. and canvases…
But meanwhile i too.. will continue to skirt the edge of freedom of speech to ensure other folks have wiggle room to express their heart freely.. in all of what human can be..
i for one.. see the true heroes of poetic freedom of expression.. in folks like Miley Cyrus.. too.. per WRECKING BALL INFAMY AND FAME..however that may offend some folks.. as to me.. it is simply human being freely expressed in both FORM AND HE ART as one HEART! OF Nature True as IS…
Yes.. there are many ‘Charlie’s’ in the world.. per full living and dying spectrum of what that can be…
AND THEY have always been on the forefront of HUMAN FREEDOM.. more fully expressed.. IN LIFE AS IS.
each human being is a combination of different brushes.. strokes.. and canvases… that is beautifully expressed sir…
Thanks Claudia..:)
I think that if a poem really upsets me, I refrain from commenting altogether. This has not happened very often. If there is something that I know to be untrue or biased, I might say so in the comment – as courteously as possible. This has not happened much either.
Sometimes I tackle current issues and I am sure some people do not like it but this is their problem not mine.
i’m all for tackling current issues in poetry – i don’t do it often enough myself though…
I’m with ya on that…
We all must decide where we stand, there is no in-between this one. I stand for free speech in what little contribution I can make. Suppression of free speech in the tool of oppression, and has always been. Still anarchy, to me is not desirable. So like the old saw “when is the train most free? When it’s on the tracks.” Freedom with self restraint seems to be the best recipe to me.
I don’t care to use profanity in my poetry, or excessive erotic images, so I self censor that way.
But I think poets can change the world, because ideas in poetry can have wings.
i think too that words can change the world – for better or worse – they’re immensely powerful
yes, still words are only that – and actions matter most.
Of very little that I can do with my writing, I feel protest is one of them – in many occasions I have done so and spread across my views, as best I could…
I feel to be able to write is a big social responsibility – and we have to handle it carefully, utilize the true potential…
i like the nod to social responsibility… true that…
Not angry, but I would not comment on something I felt “crossed the line”. Not because I am afraid, but because everyone is entitled to express themselves in their own way, but I don’t have to agree with it. One man’s meat and all that. Claudia’s comment “i wanna build bridges to people….” sums it up perfectly.
I have been known to post poems that could be termed contentious, but I try to word them in such a way that no-one could be offended.
i have to confess that every once and a while i like to provoke a bit but try to do it in a way that it doesn’t offend people… good point also that everyone is entitled to express themselves in their own way – i think it’s great if we honor that and let people be as they are
Claudia, I like your comment about wanting to build bridges to people. If I find something offensive, I will not comment on that aspect. If I find an entire poem that I find offensive, I will just move on to someone else’s poetry….. I don’t think I write on anything controversial, but then again maybe some readers disagree. I have strong opinions on some issues, but I guess I personally would most often choose to share them elsewhere. But I will never say never……..smiles. Good topic, Claudia.
never say never….true… who knows what lies around the next bend…smiles
Yes, so very true!!
There is so much negativity in the world that I like my poetic voice to be positive, for the most part…that includes my comments as well. I think encouragement is powerful! Free speech is a fundamental right that should be recognized, exercised and protected…violent actions, on the other hand, need to be restrained and justly punished. I think religion and politics can be expressed/discussed even if persons respectfully agree to disagree!
respect is the key for me as well… if we disagree respectfully both sides can win
yeah, respect is the keyword.
So, were the writers at Charlie Hebdo disrespectful. Should they have been more polite, more sweet, less offensive?
Let’s all write around the bush, why talk about the obvious.
I do not do ‘politically correct’ very well. When i do write about things in the political spectrum I am typically blunt, very obvious in my point of view. It is never my intention to personally offend someone, but I know I am opening the door to the possibility of strong disagreement, and that is ok, as long as we stay on topic and avoid personal attacks. I will, on occasion, comment on poems where I do not agree with the message, but I always make it about the subject matter and not the poet. And, while in disagreement, I will still strive to find value in the presentation of the poem.
We are all different. We have different opinions, values, beliefs. Debate can be undertaken without animosity, disagreement without violence. Unfortunately, those perpetrating the violence in Paris, and similar acts across the world, do not agree with that sentiment. To them, it is agree/submit/convert or die. I do not know how to reason with that.
making our point about the subject matter and not the people is a precious point… appreciating others in their other-ness is a big point for me as well
This is a great topic, Claudia!
I’ve written quite a few pieces that have upset people (my poem, ‘Niggas’ got the most negative reactions) but do I feel bad about it? No. Do I still stand by what I said in those more risky writes? Yes. But, why I believe it is okay to stand by a poem that might’ve ruffled some feathers: everything I write is from a place of open-mindedness, and mostly speaking from the POV of an issue that I, too, have a problem with as well – that should not be seen as ignorance. As a gay black guy, I know discrimination all too well, and I would never write something to solely try and piss people off and offend them. If I do feel someone has crossed a line, e.g., poems riddled with racism, bigotry, sexism, xenophobia, etc. and it seems the author is standing by them, and not making a point as to how asinine those issues are, I would leave a comment, and move on – not argue back and forth. I’ve learned not to waste my time on ignorance; common sense sounds like nonsense to those kind of thinkers.
in such a case i would leave a comment as well in which i would openly speak my opinion – they’re allowed to say what they think – i’m allowed to say what i think – and we can disagree and still do it in a respectful way
true, C. Usually the respect goes out of the windows with passed debacles in my case… oy…
To begin–so much tragedy and this is a world so torn apart. It’s hard not to succumb to a feeling of fear. Personally, I try to avoid subjects that may be hurtful or offensive to others. I differ politically from many and my faith is important to me. I do have a separate blog to express my Christian point of view and that does enter into my poetry often enough but, I hope, not in a way that bothers anyone. I appreciate and value the many opinions expressed in the intimacy of poetry–not always agreeing, but always with respect. I gain valuable insights from others that only serve to enrich my own world view. In 12-Step programs they have a saying: “Take what you like and leave the rest.” I find that’s a good approach for me. I do hope I would have the courage to die for the right of freedom of speech and for my faith. Others are doing just that. This morning, I made the decision to wear a cross whenever it’s appropriate as a way of standing up for my beliefs.
I need to add, while I’m Christian, I find that one of the most scary things is judgmentalism and, fundamentalism. I do not believe in imposing my views on others, nor do I want them to impose theirs on me. Faith, sexual orientation, politics etc.–they are personal to each of us.
Fundamentalisms scare me too!
“I’ve learned not to waste my time on ignorance” – this sounds like a great piece of advice. There are a few (very few) blogs that I never visit because I know their writers hold views that are too different from my own values.
Anthony, I like what you have said. I agree with you about not wasting time on ignorance. Nor wasting time on arguing back and forth. I really am not into being argumentative in the poetry blogosphere… I respect and wish to be respected; as I know you do.
bedtime for me over here but will check back in tomorrow morning…. see you then…
I do try to censor myself somewhat in what I write…especially as I do not want to consciously offend…although when I write about my faith, I recognize that there are those who, not sharing the same faith as me, may be offended by what I write. I can control what I say, but have no control over my readers’ reactions. I have found some blogs that I have found to bother me/offend me due to their content, and with some of these, I have chosen to walk away. Others blogs, though, bother me because they force me to think, and these are often worth coming back to even though I may disagree vehemently with the writer’s point of view. I guess, to make a long story short…I consider my reaction on a case by case basis…and even though someone’s viewpoint may be offensive to me, I also recognize that they have the right to say what they will. Freedom of speech/freedom of expression is certainly worth it, and therefore I’d rather be offended from time to time than desire outright censorship.
“Others blogs, though, bother me because they force me to think, and these are often worth coming back to even though I may disagree vehemently with the writer’s point of view.” that’s a gem, my man… I agree
I with agree with Bryan Ens, that I am willing to be offended at times rather than have censorship from outside sources. I think, as was mentioned by Bjorn and Claudia, we must all accept the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech. I don’t think I’m terribly controversial, though I did lose a few followers after one post in particular. If I read something offensive to me I generally don’t comment, or I sometimes ask a question, or I might just state that I disagree. In general I prefer not to read things that I find offensive, but I certainly don’t think that means they should not be allowed. Of course the problem with censorship is, who gets to decide what is too offensive to be allowed. this has been an interesting discussion to follow; thank you Claudia.
“Who gets to decide” is certainly the problem.
The power of poetry–and all writing and art–to influence others is legion. Censorship is the first business of tyrants. Yet the fear is of mass movements not individual consciousness. I am for free speech, but often not in my home.
Freedom of speech is the most precious gift democracy can bestow. That said, I agree with Bjorn and others who write that we must use this gift responsibly. Respect is part of that responsibility. I may disagree with what you say/write, but I will defend to the death your right to say and write it. If I happen to agree with you, cheers; if I do not, I am (alas) either silent, or try to be respectful in my disagreement. Which is true of all of us here at the pub. A little provocation is good for the brain cells. There is a distinction between judicious editing and outright censorship. But I’d still rather be provoked than censored.
As you know, Claudia, I don’t worry about offending.
Neither did those who were shot.
I also don’t worry about questioning or commenting on what I don’t enjoy.
Neither did those who were shot.
Maybe one of the many Elephants in the room here is, “Should that magazine have published as it did?”
I think yes.
I think we need to build societies that fight intolerance.
Freedom is not a privilege, but must be fought for.
One of the greatest threats to freedom is the idea of the sacred.
We should speak out always against those who declare something as sacred.
For sacred means, “don’t touch, don’t question, don’t offend, don’t talk”
On poetry blogs (as opposed to idea blogs), people tip toe to be sweet, palatable and to get liked — these leads to the worse sort of writing, in my opinion.
Oh, I hope this does not offend anyone. 😉
If it is good, it will offend someone.
Agreed… I’m not one to tip-toe around subjects because they might offend; I’ve had people write horrible comments and send me emails saying disgusting things about me for the simple fact that they were offended by something I’ve written. did I apologize? Nope. I still stand firm by those pieces. And no, I don’t think the writers at Charlie Hebdo should’ve been, “more polite, more sweet, less offensive”.
i agree… we need to build societies that fight intolerance – and freedom and freedom of speech doesn’t come just so – we def. have to wrestle for it – and we need to touch the untouchable as well sometimes – in a respectful way though – the goal is freedom and not hurting people. i think the writers at charlie hebdo were walking the edge very consciously – but we def. need people who do this. so i have high respect for their fearlessness
As anyone who has followed my poetry can attest, there is NO subject that I do not have an opinion on, & when I get into sensitive religious or political issues, what I express is ONLY my opinions, my perceptions–I have offended some, as the comments have demonstrated, but provocation can be, should be, is healthy. If we all agreed with each other, what a dull world this would be. I tend to gravitate toward the poetry that expresses the poet’s passion, POV, world view; the stronger the better; like Kerouac, I am “an outlaw of the sensorium”. But I have never soft peddled, or pussy-footed around the comments page. Poetry is so ultra-dimensional, personal, abstract, mysterious that I can always find a line, a phrase, a stanza that I resonate with. There are a few poets in our dVerse community who simply write in outrageous gorgeous bizarre macabre styles that I dearly love. Poetry with a capital P is so expansive, so inexorable, that none of us will ever run our of elbow room for whatever language or poetics or ideas we can conjure up.
You have occasionally offended me. Thank you.
I like your last comments Sabio…truth and satire bundled into one. Well done. I suppose as I get older, my writing becomes more focussed (or at least I hope it does) – I become more aware of what hills I am willing to die on.
I also know that I’ve always hated censorship of any kind and value freedom of speech greatly. A poet/writer I very much like, Steven Heighton, advises to write “…what haunts you…if it merely interests you, it’s never enough…what haunts and obsesses you…may, with luck and labour, interest your reader”.
I lean toward writing as a witness, and trying to write only about that which I am passionate. Often this is controversial and sometimes I end up arguing about my point of view. I don’t set out to offend anyone, but I don’t shy away from it either.
Lawrence Ferlinghetti has said many things that inspire me: poetically, politically, daily…today, this caught my heart…”If you would be a great poet, be the conscience of the race.”
Je suis Charlie. I don’t mean I want to be Hebdo. I just mean I don’t think anyone should have to die for their words, nor should anyone fear dying for writing or speaking. In this way, I join with the millions around the world standing with Parisians demonstrating their unwillingness to bow to terrorists.
When there is ignorance and lack of tolerance or when people hate, satire can be so emotionally charged and visceral, hurtful, spiteful; the distinguishing factor between lampoon and attempts to destroy humans or their character is in the definition of satire:
– a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are
held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule; exposing, denouncing or deriding;
speech that mocks society’s irony and weaknesses ; “whatever department
of human expression, there is objective truth therein” [Wyndham Lewis, “Rude
Assignment,” 1950]
To me, and I believe according to the courts, it’s important that Freedom of speech does not however, cover actions of those who seek to harm or do damage to anyone, but that it causes us to reflect, reason with emotional restraint. I think that is what we all seem to agree on.
I’m not sure we all agree, Kathy. Some would say emotionally offending someone is the same as “harming” them.
My opinion: If you don’t like it, don’t read it. But I encourage everyone to write what that damn well please — even if it offends.
But maybe you meant something different.
I agree with you, Sabio. There is always the ‘off’ switch, so to speak. We can choose what we read. (And personally I love satire!)
That being said, I agree with Kathy too, that the distinction the courts make is very important and we need to take account of it. There is the danger of incitement.
Yes, I have the same view. Although applying this principle to one’s self can be the real test.
One can only agree with you in general but the devil is in the detail. The problem is, who decides where the lines are drawn? Who says what seeks to harm?
That is the problem. Some people are highly sensitive about their country, their race, their gender, their sexual proclivities, their religion, their sport ….. lots of things, but that does not mean they cannot be mocked.
I feel fortunate to come from a culture where, more than most, nothing is sacred and everything is considered fair game for humour. I have offended, I am sure, more than one person because of my natural tendency to speak the truth plainly and hold nothing sacred.
So, not only are their personal differences, there are cultural differences. Australians are less likely to be offended than many others and in this connected world where we communicate across borders, how can anyone establish a system which takes all of these sensitivities into account? It is just not possible.
I agree with Sabio’s comment, if you do not like it then do not read it. I also hold to the maxim: I may not like what you say but I am prepared to defend to my death, no-one else’s, your right to say it.
One of the problems with the Charlie situation was that it was allowed to mock Muslims and Islam to degrees which would never be tolerated for other religions, particularly Judaism where hypersensitivity is strong and censorship the most common response because of it. That is not fair and neither is it principled.
Perhaps, since just censorship is so difficult there should be no censorship. After all, the nutters and fanatics who really descend to hate speech can do it anyway in this internet age, so why not just ignore them? That is what most people do.
And to quote another maxim: You can please some of the people some of the time but you will never please all of the people all of the time. So why bother trying?
when I write a poem it just comes from inside the heart ..the words just flow…from that place everything is pure … but if one wants to write about a particular topic then even though they have right to express what they want to say ..one can follow a simple rule that if the reverse is true how will be their reaction …if one is perfectly comfortable In that place then they should not worry about others reactions…as long as the respect is given for the fellow human beings …
I don’t think there is any word or subject matter that inherently does not belong in poetry. I don’t want my poetry ‘nice’ or polite. (And when I say ‘my’ I mean the stuff I read and hear as well as what I write.) I don’t want any art that is bland, boring or afraid. In my youth I was a very political poet, also an outspoken one on many taboo topics, particularly sex; now the fire in the belly is somewhat cooler but can still be roused. I would not wish to say hurtful things to any specific (private) individual in my verse, but that is a different matter. Rogues, cheats, warmongers, tyrants, all abusers of public office or enemies of the people and the environment are fair game I reckon. There are some who even think we have a duty to speak out. Perhaps we do. Poetry won’t change the wold (alas!) but it might change the heart of one person, and that is surely worth the attempt. Anyway … it’s what I do.
Reading other comments after writing mine, I see some declare poetry can change the world. I really – sadly – don’t think so (lord knows, some of us have tried hard enough). I do however think songs can help drive change, e.g. The Battle Hymn of the Republic, We Shall Overcome, etc, etc.
As for commenting on others’ blogs — I too try to focus on what I like and ignore the rest. It’s usually poor poetics that bothers me more than subject matter … and I have seen so often that people’s poetics improve by doing, so I would not wish to crush someone prematurely. I might occasionally make a suggestion but only if I am very sure of my ground and also think the person would have enough confidence to be receptive. (I have enough, so you can say what you like to me, lol.)
I think some poetry can, has maybe, changed the world…I think about Rumi and Rilke, Sappho…words that endure and influence people of all different types and stripes, years after they were penned.
Then consider Ginsberg, Ferlinghetti, Anne Waldman, and others – those who stood up to Joseph McCarthy and his “UnAmerican Actvivities Committee” when he was having artists banned from working and/or jailed for speaking their truth. I still love how Ferlinghetti managed to get the already-banned “Howl” printed and put on sale in “City Lights” in San Francisco, pretty much under McCarthy’s nose…pretty much thumbing his (and all the other poets’ noses) at that group of creeps.
When the BP spill happened in the Gulf of Mexico, a call went out for poems to protest it and was answered from poets from all over the world. I know one of my prouder accomplishments is having two poems archived on poetsagainstwar.ca alongside the likes of Gwendolyn Brooks etc. Is this changing the world? Perhaps not…but maybe…as Margaret Mead said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” I don’t see why her philosophy couldn’t just as easily apply to poets as any other group of people, but that might just be the optimistic activist side of me. She’s not around all the time, but she’s been present of late.
As far as commenting, I’m with Rosemary (Snakypoet) – I will argue if I am incensed enough and if I think the other person is up to the debate. In Canada, we have very strict hate-speech laws so our lines are drawn pretty clearly at times, but they don’t involve censorship — at least not any that has ever concerned me.
This has indeed been a fascinating discussion.
What an interesting discussion – I love the ‘take what you like and leave the rest’ comment. Both in terms of style and content, I tend to do that with poetry. There is not much that offends me personally, but I have learnt through trial and error that there will always be some people offended by my remarks/choice of subject matter.
I do tone my opinions down in conversation or with close friends/relatives if I am not in the mood to enter an argument with them. However, since I had to fight and risk my life (and watch some friends die) for freedom of expression, I have vowed to myself to never be cowed into censorship again.
I support freedom of speech absolutely but mostly I believe in the application of universal principles and the avoidance of double standards.
I believe nothing should be sacred and beyond clearly identifiable bigotry, and that is often a matter of opinion, there is nothing which should be censored. I in fact would censor nothing because I believe, like banning drugs, it just drives it underground where it becomes extreme.
In a world without censorship you will always get fanatics but most people are not fanatical and their words or images will have little impact.
As one reads more about the Charlie Hebdo tragedy it becomes very clear that the magazine waged a rather bigoted ‘war’ against Islam, which, while never justifying in any way the horrifying retaliatory murders, does make one question why it was allowed to be so blatantly discriminatory when, previously, one of their cartoonists was sacked for a work which was, by comparison, minor in terms of mocking Judaism.
One presumes that Muslims were well aware of this selective censorship and therefore felt more angry at being singled out as an object of ridicule, at least those few Muslims who react to such situations with anger.
Charlie Hebdo mocked everyone, savagely, and Christians, Jews and others, including Muslims were enraged. Some of them sanctioned violence against the magazine and its cartoonists so the Muslims were not alone.
My view is that if you have censorship then you apply it equally and not selectively where mockery of one religion is silenced and not of another.
I also believe that satire is best left to the truly gifted in the craft because then, anything can be said, but so cleverly that offence is more difficult to prove or take. Looking at some of the anti-Muslim Charlie Hebdo cartoons it is very clear that they were not necessarily gifted and were in fact crass and easily seen as bigotry of the worst kind.
The lesson from Charlie Hebdo is that freedom of speech, a gift for those who live in the developed world, but also a potential curse and something to be used with discretion, grace and wisdom.
Those who murdered did not do so in the name of any religion because all religions have extremists and if we were to judge all Christians on the actions of nations which profess to abide by Christian values, as the US does and as do many of its allies as they wage war, particularly against Muslim nations; or those which profess to abide by Judaic values, as Israel does, as it maintains occupation, colonisation and apartheid in Palestine with the use of deadly military force; or those who profess to abide by Hindu values as they send suicide bombers against their enemies; or even Buddhists who use violence and murder as weapons of dissent, then we would be doing as much of a disservice by projecting this crime onto all Muslims.
Nothing happens in a vacuum and this crime is no exception. Neither can we believe all we read. Charlie Hebdo was poorly protected despite its active ‘war’ against religions in general and Islam in particular and the reality is that none of us have any way of knowing just who planned this series of terrorist acts, i.e. they do not have to be Muslims and various intelligence agencies have always been active in ‘false flag’ operations to foment agendas which serve their interests.
But what we can know is that we are all humans sharing this planet and that most Muslims like most members of all religions are moderate and that crimes like this cannot be blamed on everyone who follows the religion because that amounts to religious bigotry.
i love having Mark of The Walking Man blog on my list….He doesn’t hold back with his poetry and often with his comments but I think of him as very straight and honest and so like many others if there is something I personally can’t identify with I move on from it quietly!…I love the work of Edward Lear…nonsense yet gently satirical…I think mostly it’s …slowly slowly catchy monkey with words rather than in your face…though I acknowledge that from time to time…in your face is the only way!!!
meant to say Claudia…great painting!!
Great topic. I often wish I took more risks in my writing and wrote from a ‘freer’ place but I do worry about others reactions and possible repercussions. I avoid religion, especially as I am not religious, certain political and social statements and find myself reluctant to use a lot swear words! If I read something I don’t agree with I tend to move on. The only time I would respond negatively to someone’s writing is if it was harmful in some way. I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinion even when it’s at odds with my own. One of the things I love about poetry is that it’s such a great vehicle for expression and besides the world would be a dull place if we all felt the same way.
The shootings in France demonstrate how some people will put themselves above the basic rights of others and act selfishly and violently in a desperate attempt to force their will onto others. History shows us that this kind of behavior never has the results the terrorists hope for. The ark of justic and freedom may be long but it always wins. The French people are showing their resolve in so many ways. My heart goes out to the families of those who’s lives were taken. Some of the worlds great literary works have been sparked by similar incidents. It’s the writers way of fighting back.
Je suis Charlie!
Is that your painting, Claudia? That is incredible!
yes it is…thank you… smiles
hey… thanks everyone for joining the discussion… really appreciated to hear from you… it’s a timely topic and it’s great to talk so openly about it…thanks…
Thanks so much for this timely and vital prompt.
My thoughts are on my blog at: https://purplepeninportland.wordpress.com/2015/01/14/considering-writing/
I am full of fear; I am a timid soul. I walk away from hate speech and offensive pictures–I can hardlysay what I mean unless someone else says it first–except lately I have been feeling fearless about telling the truths I experience about God, which has offended some. Thank you for this discussion. I love LOVE the painting that introduces it.
Love your painting Claudia! It goes so well with this discussion. Technically, I try to write many different views from many perspectives. Not necessary my viewpoint. Just points of discussion or inspirations. Having experienced several serious threats and subtle implying statements over the years, I find consolation in my spirit having only so many years on this planet. No one can truly know how many one has. Now I try to live one day at a time or less. Probably driving anyone who is around me crazy like me. But so what? You get one go round. I never mean to offend anyone. But if we all think about it everyone has a button to protect. Mmm?
Great pic, Claudia. Thanks. k.